Uttara Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:6291

¶3

RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed byRAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.02.17 19:39:16 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 987 of 2025

¶7

1 - Uttara Bai W/o Late Vishwanath Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Sadak Para, Village Parsahi (Bana), Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶11

2 - E.N.C. Of Public Health Engineering Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa - Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Chief Engineer Of Public Health Engineering Department Circle Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 4 - Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department Division Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.).

¶12

5 - Divisinal Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pensions - Surguja Division, Ambilapur, District Surguja (C.G.).

¶13

6 - Treasury Officer, Treasury Accounts And Pensions - Jashpur District Jashpur (C.G.).

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

2

¶17

For Petitioner

¶18

: Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate

¶19

For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Kawanljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

04/02/2025

¶23

Heard Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel petitioner as well as Mr. Kawanljeet Singh Saini, learned Panel Lawyer for State/respondents.

¶24

By way of ther writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

¶25

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) to direct the respondents to grant the unpaid amount of leave encashment as per the rules and grant consequential reliefs thereof;

¶26

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) to direct the respondents to grant interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of leave encashment which remained unpaid since the date of retirement of the petitioner;

¶27

10.3 Any other relief, which ther Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case along with the cost of the petition.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband initially started to work as Sahayak Handpump Technician at Bilaspur on daily wages in the respondent

¶29

3

¶30

department. Subsequently the service of the petitioner's husband was absorbed on the post of Sahayak Handpump Technician vide order dated 13.08.1997 in the work charged / contingency paid employee establishment and subsequently he was transferred to the office of Executive Engineer, PHE Department and again was transferred to the office of respondent No.4. Later on petitioner's husband died on 11.06.2011 after completion of more than 13 years in service. Therefore, the petitioner was granted death-cumretiral dues and family pension. Despite repeated request the respondent department has not released the due amount of leave encashment which the retired work charged /contingency paid employee is entitled as per the M.P./C.G. Work Charged / Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977. He submits that in the light of judgment passed by ther Court in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021 ( Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. ) and other connected matters decided on 30.09.2022, the petitioner is entitled for leave encashment.

¶31

Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioner and it is also not reflected as to whether the petitioner has completed the minimum period of service to avail the benefit of leave encashment.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record.

¶33

4

¶34

Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, the petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make detailed representation before the concerned respondent/competent authority within the period of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of the order with all necessary documents to substantiate her claim. In the event of filing of representation, on due verification, if the petitioner is found to be similarly situated persons, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (surpa), her claim shall be decided by the respondents in light of judgment of Faguvaram Patel (Supra) expeditiously preferably within the period of ‘90 days’ from the date of submission of the said representation.

¶35

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.

¶36

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶37

Ravi Mandavi

Uttara Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttara Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saj Kumar Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiwnandan Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tarun Kumar Patel Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Rasid Mohammed Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Dayal Dhruw Vs Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation